North & South is based on the 1855 novel by Elizabeth Gaskel. It was originally published as a 20 part serialized novel in Charles Dickens’ weekly magazine, “Household Words” and tells the story of Margaret Hale a 19 year old girl who returns home from London to the idyllic southern village of Helstone only to find that her father, a pastor and an intellectual, has decided to leave the Church of England due to a matter of conscience and they have found themselves forced to move to the industrial town of Milton.
I am sure that most of you have already seen, enjoyed and adored the 2004 version as did I. The 2004 mini series is one of my all time favorites and no matter how many times I have seen I never get tired of it and I always end up fangirling like a school girl every time Armitage appears at the small screen. So, naturally I was curious to see the older version and when it was finally released on DVD I did not lose any time, but I snatched and watched it right away.
Well, I have to admit I was a little disappointed by this version. It was as all the BBC series of that particular period, with dull colors, slow pacing and reminding strongly of a filmed play, which, if you have read my previous review of Pride & Prejudice (1980), you will know that I do not find annoying. I mean it is a series more than 30 years old therefor it is kind of stupid to expect the high quality of a today BBC series. However, there where series of that era that are highly enjoyable even by today’s high standards and the make you say “They don’t do it like that anymore”, like for example Poldark (1975) or Upstairs Downstairs (1971) which are unsurpassed even today and althouh I did enjoyed the new Upstairs Downstairs series it is no like it can compare. As far as North & South (1975) is concerned it is definitely not that case.
By that I do not mean that it is awfully but, simple that it is not great and that it absolutely needed to be remade it a more better and fulfilling version such as the 2004. It was faithful enough to the book maybe even more than the 2004, with a decent director and some ok performances. Nothing great or overwhelming, nothing memorable or breathtaking. Just a decent series that you can pass your time, but chances are you are not going to remember it for long.
Although it stayed closed to the book and managed to saw in a more clear way some of the themes that Gaskell’ s book raise’s, such as the feminine role vs. masculine role it was just mediocre. I cannot really put my finger to what bothered me. Maybe it was the fact that the Rosalie Shanks (Margaret Hale) and Patrick Stewart (Thornton) didn’t really have chemistry. I mean one of the reasons that made 2004 a great series was the undeniable, unbelievable chemistry and tension the main protagonists had. They could express their feeling without words with a gesture or look, something that here was not the case, and it was that chemistry that made you not to press the pause button as it was Gaskell’ s beautiful words that made you not to put down the book. Chemistry was the key not only between Hale and Thornton but between Margaret and Higgins, Margaret and Bessy or Higgins and Thornton and unfortunately in this version was lost never to be found I am afraid.
THE VERDICT
This is an ok series – God knows I have seen worst-, with a good story and some decent performances, but do not expect the greatness and the magic of the 2004 version. If you cannot find a copy and you have four hours to spend by all means watch it to satisfy your curiosity, if you have any and for historic purposes, you will get to see Patrick Stewart with hair, but do not expect it to be an unforgettable experience, far far from it
Characters
- Miss Margaret Hale — Rosalie Shanks
- Mr. John Thornton — Patrick Stewart
- Nicholas Higgins
- Mrs. Hannah Thornton
- Fanny Thornton
- Bessy — Nicholas Higgins’s daughter, who suffers from a fatal illness from working the mills
- Mary — Nicholas Higgins’s youngest daughter
- Mr. Richard Hale
- Mrs. Maria Hale
- Dixon
- Frederick Hale — Margaret’s older brother, a fugitive living in Spain since his involvement in a mutiny while serving in the British Navy, and yeap his is Mr Hale of the 2004 version
My Rating 2,5 / 5
Fire & Air 
I wouldn’t call this version of “NORTH AND SOUTH” mediocre. But it seemed to lack the magic of the 2004 version for me. One, you’re right about the lack of chemistry between Rosalind Shanks and Patrick Stewart. Two, there was some aspects of the story that the script told audiences, instead of showing it on screen. And three, the production seemed to lack exterior scenes. Considering that other 1970s productions such as 1971’s “PERSUASION” and 1972’s “EMMA” had plenty of exterior scenes, I find the lack of exterior scenes in this miniseries a bit disappointing. After all, the city of Milton itself is one of the story’s major characters.
Well, the lack of exterior scenes must have been due to the budget, but well it’s not as if the productions of Emma and Persuasion of the same era can compare to what we are used today and as far as I am concerned I do not care so much about exterior scenes at least not if we are talking about older productions. But I do care about good, solid productions that can draw the viewer into the world no matter the scenery, but I am afraid that this version of North & South failed me in that concern. Although, the story is undoubtedly interesting and one of my favorites this production failed to show the greatness of the book, that is why I consider it as mediocre.
Thanks for this. After seeing the 2004 version, I’m hopelessly spoiled for any other. The whole production is a pleasure to behold, and as you say Richard Armitage and Daniella Denbigh-Ashe positively crackle with chemistry.
I’ve just begun listening to Juliet Stevenson’s wonderful reading of the book, so I wouldn’t mind checking this version out, mostly from curiosity.
You’re welcome, I am a 100 percent in agrement with the 2004 version spoiled as for good. Although I wouldn’t say no to a film adaptation of the book in the league of the recent Pride & Prejudice, of course
Gaskell’s book is all about the strong feelings, the desperation involved in the unfolding events and the love story. The 2004 version delivers the goods. There’s no way you don’t ‘get’ that Thornton yearns for Margaret with every fiber of his being. I didn’t think Patrick Stewart did as credible a job in conveying the earth-shattering effect Margaret had over him. I didn’t sense he was madly in love with her. Also, since the ’75 version skipped over having Thornton save Margaret from the lie/inquest, there wasn’t a clear catalyst for Margaret’s transitional feelings. The ’75 version didn’t develop the love story well, and that’s the backbone of the whole novel. Throwing the original dialogue and the ‘real’ ending scene was a nod toward Gaskell, but if a production can’t convey the passion of Gaskell’s novel, there’s little point in the ‘truer to the book’ elements. In film, it’s not the words or the sets, but how well the essence of the author’s message and emotional tone you deliver that counts. I don’t think the 2004 version will ever be bested.
My feelings excactly.